The court affirmed that the victim's testimony, corroborated by DNA evidence, is sufficient for conviction in sexual assault cases, emphasizing the need for sensitivity in evaluating such evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2020 in S.C. No.196 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act & Children’s Court (Additional Sessions Court-I), Kalpetta, Wayanad. The appellant was charged for having committed the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and (n) and 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) and Sections 5(j)(ii), (l), & (n) r/w. Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO). He was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo :

a) Rigorous Imprisonment for life meaning thereby imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default clause for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of the IPC.

b) Rigorous Imprisonment for life meaning thereby imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default clause for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

c) Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default clause for the offence under Section 5(j)(ii) r/w. Section 6 of POCSO.

d) Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause for the offence under Section 506(i) of the IPC.

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The Prosecution Case :

2. The victim, a female child aged 17 years, was the daughter of the wife’s younger sister of the appellant. At the time of the commission of the offence, the appellant was 29 years of age. The prosecution alleged that the appellant threatened the victim, that her intimate relationship with her boyfriend (hereinafter mentioned as “A” for the sake of privacy) would be exposed to her family members and thereby induced fear in her. He is then alleged to have impregnated the victim multiple times and in various locations, including her own residence, an unoccupied house adjacent to her home, and a nearby coffee plantation. The prosecution alleges that the victim became pregnant and delivered a girl child on 13.02.2016.

Registration of Crime and Investigation

3. The records reveal that on 13.02.2016, the victim went to the Vythiri Hospital and seeing the child writhing in pain, she was rushed to the Labour room. She delivered a girl child. When the hospital personnel noted that the victim was a minor, the police were alerted. Her statement was recorded at 6:00 p.m. on 19.02.2016 consequent to which, Ext.P12 FIR was registered under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(a), 4, 5 (l) r/w. Section 6 of POCSO. While furnishing the information, the victim mentioned only the name of ‘A’, with whom she was in a relationship and hence, Crime No. 94 of 2016 was registered arraying the said person as the sole accused.

4. The investigation was taken over by PW10, the Circle Inspector of Police, Vythiri Police Station on 20.02.2016. He prepared Ext.P4 scene mahazar in respect of the eastern bedroom of the house where she was allegedly subjected to sexual abuse. Ext.P5 scene mahazar was prepared in respect of the area pointed out by the victim in the coffee plantation. Ext.P6 scene mahazar was prepared in respect of the uninhabited house situated at a distance of about 50 mts. to the south of the house of the victim. MO1 (nighty) and MO2 (skirt) which were stated to be worn by the victim at the time of commission of the offence were seized as per Ext.P7 seizure mahazar.